Posts by LENR Calender



    I'm not a physicist, but I've been saying since the Gullstrom paper that the second issue with the experimental setup is that the reactor's resistance might not be constant.


    So, nothing new, but you did phrase it better than me.


    1) We need actual input power to the reactor

    2) We need it for the entire duration of the experiment


    Again, I am not a physicist, but how does the reactor even receive any energy if R=0? Hint: R varies with temperature.

    To me this isn't a successful demo. And it's not because we don't have a ready product, not dependent on what I think of Rossi. I wasn't expecting third party measurement or anything like that.


    To me a successful demo would have been one that actually measures input and output power in a direct and simple manner. I would have given Rossi the benefit of the doubt that he's not pulling some hidden magic tricks (and waited for a replication/third party verification for later)


    Heck, I would just be happy with a paper by Gullstrom where he describes an experiment where he is actually measuring input power.

    Here is how Mats thinks about the event:

    https://animpossibleinvention.…cat-qx-demo-in-stockholm/

    I believe it is an excellent summary!


    Quote

    Mats:

    At the demo, as seen in the video recording, Rossi was adjusting something inside the control system just before making the dummy measurements. Obviously, someone could wonder if he was changing the system in order to obtain a desired measured value.

    His own answer was that he was opening an air intake after two hours of operation since the active cooling was not operating when the system was turned off.

    Clearly this comes down to a question of trust, and personally, discussing this detail with Rossi for some time, I have come to the conclusion that his explanation is reasonable and trustworthy.

    However, as I stated above, if I were an investor considering to invest in this technology, I would require further private tests being made with accurate measurements made by third-party experts, specifically regarding the electrical input power, making such tests in a way that these experts would consider to be relevant.



    Obviously Mats knows he has to be diplomatic with Rossi, and that if he were to show doubt to what Rossi says, it would be the end of their collaboration.

    Mats' comment:

    Quote

    Didn’t notice this. Not good.

    I discussed the dummy tests with Rossi two months before the demo. Shortly before the demo Rossi only wanted to do the short circuit test, not the 800 ohm, since the waveform would be altered in a way that would reveal sensible information, he said. I told him that in that case it was meaningless to do the test at all. He came back a few days later and said he would do it.

    Whatever adjustment he did before the dummy test, legitimate or not, it’s a serious problem. The input measurement was already weak as it was. Now I suppose the only conclusive test would be to repeat the measurements when he has a developed control system that doesn’t need cooling so you can measure COP of the whole system.

    This comment from ECW (Leonard Weinstein) reflects my thoughts. No need to divulge IP to measure input power.


    Quote


    The test protocol was very poor. The fan could have been powered with a separate power cord and avoid the fan power issue. Then the input power to the power supply box measured with a power meter. The fact that the power supply got hot indicates it had a significant added power use which has to be made small before any real progress can be claimed. The OUTPUT from the power supply could be measured with an rms power meter, so the true COP could be found without giving up any secrets. The COP has to be corrected for the 1 Ohm resistor power use.



    Maybe someone would be able to replicate Rossi's results using this kind of setup?

    Looks like we'll have to wait at least til tomorrow for the video publication to be sorted out...


    He measures the current and the supply voltage. I suspect he does not put a voltmeter across the QX as he provided a high voltage pulse every 8 seconds or so. Hence "unwilling to measure directly like any normal person." is not true.

    You just failed to understand it.


    If he measures the supply voltage then we might be ok, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that he did measure that voltage. Can you point me out to where I can find that info?

    So the reactor now has a resistance of 800 ohms ? Seems more reasonable but I thought it was supposed to have no resistance?


    From ECW: "There were measurements taken using two different resistors across the QuarkX, a 0 Ohm resistor, and an 800 Ohm resistor. ECWreporter did not have the details of the calculations taken, but they will be in the video."



    So looks like the 800 ohm comes from an added resistor.

    Never seen this kind of humor from Rossi. The initial part is a bit forced, but I like the part about picnics on the floor.


    Quote

    the attendants will have to bring up their cups from home and put a name on them otherwise they will be stolen ( the cups, not the attendants ) and if they will want to wash the cups, they will receive the bills for the consumption of the water ( so much precious, after the global warming stuff ); if they think will get hungry, not even think they will find food, albeit we will allow them to put on the floor clean sheets to picnic on them the food from home.

    The one reason I would think it could be in Sweden is that 2.5 hours seems short to have people arrive, run the demo, and put the recording online.


    9:30 in Sweden gives an extra 6 hours to upload, do some light editing, set up the page and double check everything before noon Miami time.


    Another reason is the rumor that Mats Lewan is organizing.

    I haven't checked again but the last update I saw was the meeting started at 9:30 not 10:00

    Not a crucial error, but I find your repetitive negative comments about Rossi aggravating and uncalled for in a thread that is supposed to be news and information.


    If people have to arrive at 930 it is fair to assume that the demo will start around 10. Note that oldguy used a question mark in his post as well.


    Edit: "Looks like we'll have the demo around 10am and the stream around noon." <- to clarify, those are my words and not Rossi's

    Barty,


    I think the DPS will start in the morning, and the video put up sometime *past* 12 noon Miami time. Rossisaid at first, that the video starts at noon, but changed it to sometime in the afternoon.

    I'm still guessing Sweden.



    Noon streaming does seem like too close to the arrival hour if all times indicated are Miami time.


    I am still betting on Miami with video available later than planned.

    Back on topic:


    Looks like we'll have the demo around 10am and the stream around noon.


    Don't forget your ID!


    Andrea Rossi
    November 14, 2017 at 12:52 PM

    TO ALL THE PERSONS THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED TO ATTEND TO THE DEMO OF NOVEMBER 24TH:


    PLEASE BRING WITH YOU AN ID, BECAUSE THE SECURITY WILL CHECK THE NAMES OF THE LIST TO ALLOW TO ENTER.


    PLEASE BE IN THE PLACE AT 9.30 A.M.


    Warm Regards,


    A.R.

    I appreciate you seeing my point, but I must disagree that it is "my world." This is Rossi's world and I'm just peering into it and making sense of it for you.


    The wire analogy is simply one way to think of the circuit given Rossi's statement that the reactor has an effective internal resistance of zero. Would it be better for us if Rossi measured the voltage across the reactor and the resistor, and included values for the resistance of the reactor as well as the resistor itself? Yes. Did he do that for us? No. Why? He explained why.



    Fair enough.


    My intuition is that Rossi's device could have R~0 when operating. Which means that input power ~0 (R*I^2).


    However, it must have received some energy at some point. So either R is dependent on temperature (seems likely), or the start up necessitates high Amps.


    In any case, Rossi must account for energy for the whole experiment. It's possible that his COP calculation is correct and that R(reactor)=0, but that's just a measure of instant COP.


    Who cares what power the resistance in the circuit receives. If what Rossi says is true, the instant COP is actually much higher as the device is receiving ~0 input power.


    Perhaps his device is in SSM and the reactor is not receiving any power, but then what's the point of measuring V^2/R on some random resistance. Seems totally off topic.

    Assume the reactor is a wire. Then measure power of the system. V^2/R.


    OK I think I understand where you're coming from now.


    But in your world, we're just powering the rest of the system. And we're not sending any energy to the reactor (since R=0).


    How do we even turn on the reactor if no energy ever goes to it? Why is it even in the circuit?

    Yes you can. It is in fact a conservative approximation of the input power (assuming Rossi's assertion about the cell itself having effectively a zero resistance is true). Think of it this way: if the cell has effectively zero resistance when in operation, then you can consider it as a good conductor (such as a wire) as an approximation. How would you measure the power in that case? By doing as Rossi has done. So why didn't Rossi just take the voltage reading across both the resistor and the cell and use both resistances in the calculation? Because he wanted to keep the specific values related to the cell a trade secret. Is this ideal for the peanut gallery? No. Is it what happened and does it make sense in that context? Yes.


    If Rossi had measured the voltage across both the resistance and Quarkx, then it would be an upper bound on input power to the Quarkx (i.e. conservative):

    (V(R)+V(Q))^2/R > (V(R)+V(Q))^2/(R+R(quarkx))


    However, Rossi only measured voltage across the resistance, and:

    V(R)^2/R<(V(R)+V(Q))^2/R


    We can't conclude that what he measured is greater or smaller than actual input power. He's just measuring the wrong stuff.


    Or show me your math that proves your assertion.